Bible Study But Election Isn't Fair!

[brightfame52]

Faith is a GIFT, like Salvation and Repentance are. Therefore, people cannot make it or get it ON THEIR OWN, they need to ACCEPT it from God. 2 Peter 1:1 .

Where is there Biblical evidence for "Premise 1"?

How does a spiritually dead in sin person accept something ? Doesn't it take life to do that ?

 

[miamited]

Election refers to the Jews who were elected for purpose not elected for salvation.

The purpose of God’s election was for the bloodline of the Messiah.

Hi JLB
Yes, I can get behind that. That the Jews were elected, through the promise given unto Abraham, to be His people to do His bidding upon the earth. But that election, as you say, didn't ever include eternal salvation. The old covenant law, given through Moses, as is fairly clearly explained when it speaks of the consequences for obedience/disobedience was only that they would receive blessings in this life. Their wives would be fruitful, their harvests plenty and their enemies fearful of them. That was God's promise to the people of Israel for their obedience to the law. And as I think Paul made pretty clear, observance of the law, was never intended to provide man's salvation. It was, in fact, given that we might become aware of all the ways in which we sin against God. We are convicted of our sin through the giving of the law. But we are saved from that sin, through the sacrifice of the Son and our obedience and repentance that should naturally follow that faith.

 

[Dave...]

Hey Dave...

No, I think I'm good with my understanding. You see, my understanding doesn't have to argue whether it's fair or not. God desires that all be saved and the proclamation of the gospel to all people is how He is accomplishing that task... but again, not all will believe. My understanding doesn't mean that God pre-chose everyone who will come to salvation through His Son's sacrifice and teachings. But it does agree that God did predestine that all who would believe would receive His mercy and eternal life.

Well, in light of the whole of scripture, I would disagree with your conclusion. You've simply constructed a doctrine out of thin air. You be the first, mianited, start with the OP. What did Paul really mean?

So, where you see that specific people by name were predestined,

Isn't that what you see?

I see that it was predestined that all who would believe will be saved... which I find the Scriptures teach fairly clearly.

Since it is clearly shown, please show us. Before you say it, Romans 8:29, "foreknew" has a pregnant meaning in Scripture. Foreknew means foreloved. I think the meaning is right in line with Ephesians 1:5 "having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,"

Dave

 

[Whatever]

God desires that all be saved and the proclamation of the gospel to all people is how He is accomplishing that task... but again, not all will believe.

You are contradicting God.
God desires X but X doesn't come to pass.

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,'

The word "pleasure" is chêphets = pleasure; hence (abstractly) desire; concretely a valuable thing; hence (by extension) a matter (as something in mind): - acceptable, delight (-some), desire, things desired,

Isa 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

You are saying that God desires all men to be saved and God says His word shall accomplish what I please. But now you say God only really wants us to do it for Him and that it is our fault if it doesn't happen.

God really wants all men to be saved, or God only wants a whole bunch of men to be saved cause it is up to us.
They can't both be true.
God will do all His pleasure or desire.
He either desires every single human being to be saved
or
He desires it to be left in the hands of fallible men and let it be screwed up.

 

[electedbyHim]

Election refers to the Jews who were elected for purpose not elected for salvation.


of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls) Romans 9:4-11



The purpose of God’s election was for the bloodline of the Messiah.

Election refers to the Jews who were elected for purpose not elected for salvation.

That is only a small part.

If you would study Theology, you would understand.

An election is a time when people choose who they want to fill certain positions from President on down. An election is a choice. The biblical doctrine of election teaches that God chooses to save some, and, by necessity, if He does not choose everyone, then there are some who are passed over. Those whom He has chosen to save are referred to as “the elect” (see, e.g., Mark 13:20).

The Bible teaches that God chooses people based on His own purposes and His desire to show grace to undeserving sinners. Ephesians 1:4–6 says, “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.” He chose in love, in accordance with His pleasure and will, so that He would be glorified. God’s election has nothing to do with what the elect would or would not do.

God did not choose everyone. If He had, then everyone would come to faith in Christ. He chose some, and He left others to their own desires. Left to ourselves, all of us would continue in our rebellion and reject Christ. God chose to pursue some, convict them of their need, and lead them to faith. It is because of God’s choice that anyone comes to faith in Christ. Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day” (John 6:44).

This is a tough truth to get our minds around. We are tempted to think that we are more just and gracious than God and that He should have chosen everyone. We need to reject that temptation. We are in no place to judge God! It is not as though some are desperately crying out to Him for salvation and He rejects them because He has not chosen them. Those whom God does not choose continue doing exactly what they want—they rebel against God and try to stay as far away from Him as possible. He simply allows them to continue on the path they have freely and willfully chosen. He has, however, chosen to intervene in the lives of some and win them over. He does this so that He might show His love and kindness to people who are undeserving.

Some people think that God “chooses” based on the choices that He knows that the elect will make: He knows who will and who will not receive Christ, and He makes His choice based on that. But that would make people the ultimate choosers, with God simply following our choice. Biblically, it is the other way around. God chooses some based on His own purposes, and then, in response to His work in their lives, they choose Him. His choice is first and foundational. Without God’s election, no one would ever turn to Him.

Many Christians recoil at the doctrine of election the first time they hear it. But, upon further reflection, most believers will admit that God was at work in their lives, drawing them to Himself long before they were even aware of it. They will recognize that, if He had not intervened, they would have continued in unbelief. The hand of God, working in big ways and little ways, becomes more evident in hindsight.

Some object to the doctrine of election on the grounds that it stifles missionary and evangelistic activity. After all, if God has chosen to save some, then they will be saved whether or not anyone takes them the gospel—so why bother? This objection overlooks the truth that hearing and believing the gospel is the means that God uses to save those He has chosen to save. Paul believed and taught election (it is a New Testament doctrine), yet he was zealous like no other in his missionary endeavors. Because he knew that God had chosen to save people through the gospel, Paul proclaimed it boldly and was persecuted for it. He explains, “I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 2:10). Paul endured persecution so that the elect will be saved, because the elect cannot be saved without hearing and believing the gospel. Through evangelism, God allows people to participate in His great plan of drawing a people unto Himself from every nation and language on earth. The doctrine of election frees us to share the gospel without pressure or fear of failure. When we share the gospel clearly, we have been obedient, and that is a success. The results are left to God.
Gotquestions.org

 

[JLB]

But we are saved from that sin, through the sacrifice of the Son and our obedience and repentance that should naturally follow that faith.

We are saved by our obedience; by obeying the Gospel.

 

[Whatever]

The Bible teaches that God chooses people based on His own purposes and His desire to show grace to undeserving sinners.

That is part of it, but way bigger than that.
I've recommended this book before:

What about Evil?: A Defense of God's Sovereign Glory

Reconciling the existence of God and evil is a conundrum in Christian theology, and a philosophical approach rather than a theological one dominates. Turning to the Bible's grand storyline, Scott Christensen examines how sin, evil, corruption, and death fit into the broad outlines of redemptive...

www.wtsbooks.com

This is a 576 page $30 book.

He has condensed it down to a 240 page $17 book:

Defeating Evil: How God Glorifies Himself in a Dark World

Revised, adapted, and condensed for a broader audience, this companion edition to Scott Christensen’s lauded What about Evil? shows how sin, evil, corruption, and death fit into redemptive history. Exploring the storyline of Scripture and addressing practical concerns, Christensen shows that...

www.wtsbooks.com

Christensen shows that God’s ultimate end in creation is to maximize his glory before his image-bearers by defeating evil through Christ’s atoning work.

 

[Tenchi]

II. "BUT ELECTION ISN'T FAIR!"

Some years ago I was at a weekend retreat with a group of university students. During a discussion period someone raised the subject of predestination and election. One girl asked, "Where does the Bible clearly teach that God sovereignly chooses some people to be saved?" I asked her to read Romans nine out loud. She paused a second with a surprised look on her face as she slowly read "before they were born or had done good or evil." When she got to 9:13 and read, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated," she stopped and said, "But that's not fair." I asked her to read the next verse. The King James Version says, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." She had a modern speech translation and it said, "You will object and say, 'but that's not fair.'" The surprised girl blurted out, "That's what I just said."

It certainly isn't just.

And what better cause could be given to the unrepentant wicked to reject God and call Him evil than to say that He's arbitrarily made them wicked and locked them irresistibly into their wickedness before they were even born? I can think of none. And the only response - pathetic and God-diminishing thought it is - that the Calvinist offers to this observation is "Who are you, oh man, to reply against God?"

But Paul does not end chapter 9 of his letter at verse thirteen, or at verse twenty:

Romans 9:30-33
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33 just as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a Stone of stumbling and a Rock of offense, and he who believes in him shall not be disappointed."

This is a very odd way for Paul to conclude his thoughts (vs. 30 - "what shall we say then?") in chapter 9 if the chapter was intended by Paul to communicate the Calvinist doctrine of predestination/election. If he had intended to teach such a thing, would he not have written something like the following?:

30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith unconditional election of individuals (with faith merely being evidence of an individual’s prior election);
31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works had not been unconditionally and individually elected for salvation. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33 just as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever is irresistibly caused to believes in him will not be disappointed.”

How would Paul's original audience, the Early Christians at Rome, have understood his words in Romans 9? The Jewish believer would very likely have considered his words in the light of Genesis 18:18-20 :

Genesis 18:18-19
18 ...Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed?
19 "For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him."

God chose Abraham to command his children and household to keep the way of the Lord, doing righteousness and justice, so that God would fulfill His promise to Abraham that, by way of his descendants, the Jews, all of the nations of the world be blessed. But why would Abraham have to command his children and household to obey God, if God sovereignly ordains all that comes to pass? Why is the impression given in this passage that God's fulfillment of His promise to Abraham is contingent (i.e. "so that" - vs. 19) upon Abraham's descendants "keeping the way of the Lord"? If Calvinism is true, no such contingency exists, only the sovereign decree of God.

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

But Romans 9, when it is considered fully, right to its end, does not actually read as a primer on Calvinist predestination/election. The conclusion to his thoughts that Paul offered emphasized the faith of the individual believer, not divine election. He "doubles-down" on this faith-focused conclusion in the beginning of chapter 10:

Romans 10:1-4
1 Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation.
2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.
3 For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Here, again, Paul did not emphasize Calvinist divine predestination/election but the actions of the individual Jew. In ignorance (caused ultimately by God?), they did not "subject themselves to the righteousness of God," but zealously pursued God by self-righteousness, instead. Paul gave no hint here that this was all because of God's divine ordination, that the mistaken zeal of the Jews was ultimately God's doing. Instead, he stated that the Jews did not subject themselves to God's righteousness. Paul then goes on to locate proper, godly righteousness in the belief of any person who trusts in Christ (as opposed to godliness residing in Calvinist unconditional election and meticulous divine decree).

Now listen very carefully. If you object to election on the grounds that you think it is unfair, you are using an objection that has already been used and answered in the Scripture. The moment you say, "Election is unfair," you are admitting that you disagree with Paul's teaching in Romans 9:11-13 because that is the very objection he is presupposing his opponents will make. In his answer Paul does not back up or soften his statement. He declares that God has every right to show mercy to whomever he chooses.

The Calvinist view of election is unfair, espousing a view of God that makes Him monstrous and unjust according to His own standard. Both Molinism and Provisionism offer far better, more biblical and rational ways to understand God's election than the arbitrary decree of God "before the foundations of the earth were laid."

Of course, God may do as He pleases in the universe He has made and sustains at every moment. And He does. But not in such a way as to force people to evil, instilling in them irresistible and wicked desires that they then "choose" to follow to their eternal destruction. Instead of the Calvinist obsession with God's sovereignty, the Molinist emphasizes God's omniscience as the key to reconciling His sovereignty with human free agency. Instead, of God's love and redemption being only for a select few, Provisionism stands on the repeated declaration of God's word that salvation is graciously provided by God to all human beings. It is by no means necessary to adopt the Calvinist view of Romans 9 that leaves the reader with a God who, before the world existed, arbitrarily hated Esau and loved Jacob

The young lady continued to read Romans nine. She read verse 18, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." She literally gasped, "Then man cannot be held responsible. He is only a robot." Again I asked her to read the next verse. The King James says, "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" The young lady's modern speech translation read, "You will say to me, 'Then man cannot be held responsible. He is only a robot.'" The poor girl said, "I did it again!" Let me repeat what I just said. If you object to election on the grounds that you think it makes man a robot, you are using an objection that has already been used and answered in the Scripture. The moment you say, "Election means man cannot be held responsible," you are admitting that you disagree with Paul's teaching in Romans 9:18. Again, we see that Paul did not soften his statement. He declares that the Potter has the sovereign right to fashion, as he chooses, the lump of clay which is sinful man.

What the poor girl didn't understand was that she was a victim of the logical fallacy called Begging the Question, which the Calvinist was cleverly employing in defense of his Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9. Assuming the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9, the man speaking to the girl read that interpretation into everything in the chapter, confining the girl to a Calvinist construction of Paul's words and dishonestly making her natural, reasonable objections to the Calvinist understanding of Romans 9 opposition to the apostle Paul himself. This sort of deceitful dealing with this girl would not have endured for five seconds in a first-year seminary class on hermeneutics or philosophy.

Both of the above objections forget the fall of Adam and the doctrine of depravity. They treat sinners as if God created them sinful instead of remembering that we all chose, in Adam, to sin...."

Here the Begging the Question fallacy is more evident. The writer admits to needing other Calvinist doctrines (Total Depravity, compatibilism/soft determinism) as lenses through which to interpret Paul's words in Romans 9.

www.soteriology101.com - Provisionism

www.reasonablefaith.org - search: Molinism

 

[Dave...]

Tenchi, Romans 9 is about the salvation of Israel and God's character, and how God's promises to Israel relate to the Gentiles receiving salvation. This doesn't destroy what Paul said in 9:13, or (18-21). In fact we can go back and see even more context in Romans 8:29-30. The mere fact that Paul predicts your objection indicates that he’s teaching unconditional election. It would seem rather odd that Paul would anticipate your objections for something that you claim he isn't even saying.

Romans 8:29-30 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Romans 916 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

Romans 9:18-21 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this? Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make (foresee) one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

Tenchi, you'll need to do better than that.

Dave

 

[jasonc]

Insulting
I get the gray area of this but ..

The sky blue says me

The sky is red .says another .

I take photo ,shows it as blue .

Both are believers ,it's a fact one can be wrong .

I dont even quite buy all of the five points . I just don't see it as a hill to die on .

I have been told I was wrong in church on

How windows are made and the quality of them by an elder who owns a millwork and builds cabinets and doors and window frames and isn't cheap nor of home depot quality.

Some of my theology and it was explained why I was . Minor secondary stuff but it was said

Other things

 

[Tenchi]

Tenchi, Romans 9 is about the salvation of Israel and God's character, and how God's promises to Israel relate to the Gentiles receiving salvation. This doesn't destroy what Paul said in 9:13, or (18-21). In fact we can go back and see even more context in Romans 8:29-30. The mere fact that Paul predicts your objection indicates that he’s teaching unconditional election.

It's amazing that, having exposed the Begging the Question fallacy in your OP, you use it here again! It should gravely concern you that you don't recognize the use of this fallacious kind of arguing in your remarks. Paul isn't anticipating my objections because I agree with everything Paul has said in the chapter - just not according to the Calvinist's soteriological systematic.

Romans 8:29-30 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Romans 916 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

Romans 9:18-21 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this? Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make (foresee) one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

Tenchi, you'll need to do better than that.

Do better than what? I accept all that Paul wrote in the verses you've quoted. Again, I just don't accept the Calvinist way of understanding these verses. So, no, I don't "have to do better than that." I'm not the one, you see, employing fallacies in support of my understanding of Paul's teaching.

 

[Whatever]

I dont even quite buy all of the five points . I just don't see it as a hill to die on .

You don't see the nature of God a hill to die on? Then we could all be happy going to a JW"s church, a Mormon church, a Muslim church etc.

 

[jasonc]

You don't see the nature of God a hill to die on? Then we could all be happy going to a JW"s church, a Mormon church, a Muslim church etc.

Not even the oldest reformed church demonation in America of which I am a member .

Says that in order to be a member one must be a five pointer

They will offer baptism to those who weren't baptized in the Trinity and that is sprinkling baptism


They will have you agree to the five solas and total depravity .

Here's one for ya ,a hill to die on

Infant baptism before salvation is confessed ! Most Calvinist do practice that and how can a dead in sin infant understand and acknowledge that and it's accepted if you were baptized and never actually believed but came later


Make that make sense.

Lutherans practice that too and Catholics

My demonation is associated reformed Presbyterianism of which at one time d. James Kennedy was a member of and his church .coral ridge and it's semimary .they switched to pcua

There are other arp pastors that are well known .

If it's primary then tell the London Baptist minister surgeon he is wrong as the Methodist , Arminian and anglican John Wesley is lost .

Spurgeon on Why You Should Read Wesley on the Christian Life

Spurgeon takes on both the Wesley haters and the Wesley defenders.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Spurgeon on Universal Atonement, John Wesley, and George Whitefield - David Westerfield

Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, “It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself,” they say, “to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty.” I admit there is, but beauty...

davidwesterfield.net

Secondary issue even to spurgeon.

My churches founding pastor ,don Watkins ,fully reformed but also as my pastor is able to be eucumanical ,preached ,taught at Arminian churches .even though in my case as I met him years ago ,held revivals at a woman led pentacostal church and to this day a non english speaking church rents mine out because don was that willing to be helpful and that church is led by a female Puerto Rican and her husband

He said to the husband .let's not major in the minors with the disagreement over the issue if female pastors . That even was back 20 plus years ago. The Presbytery hasn't forced that different church out at all.

So no I won't waste my time debating endlessly on the same persons who won't budge . The same people on this thread and others haven't budged since I came here in 09.

I debated against the reformed under this username and the current one . I only comment when openly ignorant statements on what the wcf says or the reformed because I have attended a reformed church for five years .

I havent hid what I believe from the pastor or openly undermined the teachers on the five points .

 

[electedbyHim]

That is part of it, but way bigger than that.
I've recommended this book before:

What about Evil?: A Defense of God's Sovereign Glory

Reconciling the existence of God and evil is a conundrum in Christian theology, and a philosophical approach rather than a theological one dominates. Turning to the Bible's grand storyline, Scott Christensen examines how sin, evil, corruption, and death fit into the broad outlines of redemptive...

www.wtsbooks.com

This is a 576 page $30 book.

He has condensed it down to a 240 page $17 book:

Defeating Evil: How God Glorifies Himself in a Dark World

Revised, adapted, and condensed for a broader audience, this companion edition to Scott Christensen’s lauded What about Evil? shows how sin, evil, corruption, and death fit into redemptive history. Exploring the storyline of Scripture and addressing practical concerns, Christensen shows that...

www.wtsbooks.com

Christensen shows that God’s ultimate end in creation is to maximize his glory before his image-bearers by defeating evil through Christ’s atoning work.

Agreed, it is way bigger than what I posted.

Many have no interest in these doctrines and just call them wrong.

I will look into those books.

Thanks for the links.

 

[Whatever]

Not even the oldest reformed church demonation in America of which I am a member .

Says that in order to be a member one must be a five pointer

They will offer baptism to those who weren't baptized in the Trinity and that is sprinkling baptism

Yes, Calvinist Presbyterian Churches (I don't think all Presbyterian Churches are Calvinist today) will welcome everybody to come and worship. You can be a member and considered a Christian, but will not be allowed to be a leader or teacher if you do not prescribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith.
If a person has been baptized by immersion, they will not insist you be re-baptized by sprinkling. They will accept Roman Catholic baptism - I think. Might depend upon who the leaders are.

Most Calvinist do practice that and how can a dead in sin infant understand and acknowledge that and it's accepted if you were baptized and never actually believed but came later

They believe that Baptism simply replaces circumcision. It simply declares you are in the covenant community, not necessarily saved.
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

If it's primary then tell the London Baptist minister surgeon he is wrong as the Methodist , Arminian and anglican John Wesley is lost .

I'm simply saying that if God has done things as Calvinists say he has, then all non-Calvinists see Him as a monster. I have had many tell me that "I could never worship the Calvinist God." I always wonder if they die and go to Heaven, and stand before Jesus and He tells them "before I let you in, I want to let you know that Calvinists were right." What would they do or say? Would they spit in His face and call Him a monster. Of course they couldn't do that because they will have been changed.

No Calvinists I know have ever said "I could never worship the Arminian or whatever God."

 

[electedbyHim]

We are saved by our obedience; by obeying the Gospel.

Where does it say that in the Bible.

Saved by obedience????

Notice the highlighted.

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Obedience is a fruit of salvation.

1 John 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
1 John 2:4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
1 John 2:5 but whoever keeps His word, truly in him the love of God has been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
1 John 2:6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

 

[electedbyHim]

Yes, Calvinist Presbyterian Churches (I don't think all Presbyterian Churches are Calvinist today) will welcome everybody to come and worship. You can be a member and considered a Christian, but will not be allowed to be a leader or teacher if you do not prescribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith.
If a person has been baptized by immersion, they will not insist you be re-baptized by sprinkling. They will accept Roman Catholic baptism - I think. Might depend upon who the leaders are.

They believe that Baptism simply replaces circumcision. It simply declares you are in the covenant community, not necessarily saved.
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.


I'm simply saying that if God has done things as Calvinists say he has, then all non-Calvinists see Him as a monster. I have had many tell me that "I could never worship the Calvinist God." I always wonder if they die and go to Heaven, and stand before Jesus and He tells them "before I let you in, I want to let you know that Calvinists were right." What would they do or say? Would they spit in His face and call Him a monster. Of course they couldn't do that because they will have been changed.

No Calvinists I know have ever said "I could never worship the Arminian or whatever God."

I have had many tell me that "I could never worship the Calvinist God."

Indeed, I have ahad my share of these people.

The problem is, it is not a Calvinist God. This is the God of the Bible.

Many have told me that I worship a monster and an unjust angry God.

I never saw God like that in the Bible.

 

[jasonc]

Yes, Calvinist Presbyterian Churches (I don't think all Presbyterian Churches are Calvinist today) will welcome everybody to come and worship. You can be a member and considered a Christian, but will not be allowed to be a leader or teacher if you do not prescribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith.
If a person has been baptized by immersion, they will not insist you be re-baptized by sprinkling. They will accept Roman Catholic baptism - I think. Might depend upon who the leaders are.

They believe that Baptism simply replaces circumcision. It simply declares you are in the covenant community, not necessarily saved.
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.


I'm simply saying that if God has done things as Calvinists say he has, then all non-Calvinists see Him as a monster. I have had many tell me that "I could never worship the Calvinist God." I always wonder if they die and go to Heaven, and stand before Jesus and He tells them "before I let you in, I want to let you know that Calvinists were right." What would they do or say? Would they spit in His face and call Him a monster. Of course they couldn't do that because they will have been changed.

No Calvinists I know have ever said "I could never worship the Arminian or whatever God."

I have seen war

There are battles veterans and trauma survivors have .

I can see when you see death ,bodies dismembered and gore and how evil man can be then in my case and in away others who aren't vets but first responders try to fit in society what is normal becomes strange.

The answer why God is always left silent .

You see on the bad days how church can be shallow. Hallow . Bland . Superficial .war and suffering and church over there is more intense . I can find purpose in the death around me and chaos .

Despite how I see culture in the west ,really another thread ,I still can't find meaning in life at times and show up to find the only source that has it .

Any victim of rape ,survivor of a assault will see and get why I posted . Dark humour becomes normal . It is the only way to get by . With church I have my bad days and good ones .I don't hide that from my pastor . I don't go to him when the PTSD is bad .the other church has the man I need to seek out as he to is a war vet and has battled that monster . He tried to commit suicide and Imbibed thirty sleeping pills and didn't die .

So God allowing or using death ,suffering etc really doesn't phase me .I just accept that I won't get an answer I fully can understand .

Listen to a parent who buried there children and how they acted towards God .it's not rosy .it involves anger ,hurt and tears .why God did you let that happen? What did I do ? Birthdays and Christmas have horrible memories until it just gets more bearable .
.
Dads death was three years ago last week . He died believing .my fil died that as well and both are miracles that they confessed .my fil especially. I buried him ,helped put his ashes in the ground and placed the VA marker ,paid for the headstone along with my brother in law . Placed that in the ground as well.

I pass fire stations and can't help but think of him as he was a fireman. I read of seabees and the same as he was one and old county history .likely he would have information on it .

But I digress
The forums ,are not the best to judge the free williers .

I listened to several reformed pastors before coming to arp.

Coral ridge was one and another was allistair begg.sone of McArthur and Sproul .
.

I don't buy the practice if infant baptism .the London confessions don't hold it .

I made that known but well it's a secondary issue .

 

[Whatever]

Where does it say that in the Bible.

Saved by obedience????

I could see somebody getting this from this passage.
New King James
2 Co 9:13 while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ . . .

King James
2 Co 9:13 Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ . . .

Amplified Bible
13 Because of this act of ministry, they will glorify God for your obedience to the gospel of Christ . . .

I think the New Living Translation brings out more of the sense of the verse
13 As a result of your ministry, they will give glory to God. For your generosity to them and to all believers will prove that you are obedient to the Good News of Christ.

The original Living Bible translation might even be clearer
13 Those you help will be glad not only because of your generous gifts to themselves and to others, but they will praise God for this proof that your deeds are as good as your doctrine.